20 Aug 2017
Comment by Hugh Oxford
Introduction by Chauncey Tinker
I was engaging in debate at the spiked website when I came across a very interesting comment by a commenter called Hugh_Oxford. The author was advancing a theory about why many feminists are taking sides with Islam even though their ideology is completely at odds with Islamic ideology. Since many people have pondered on this very curious phenomenon but few seem to be advancing any plausible theories about what may be behind it, I thought it was worth publicizing this comment in an attempt to spark some debate on the subject.
Let’s just remind ourselves first of some of the things that Islam says about women, to put all this in perspective:
According to the Koran (33:50) women can be taken captive as sex slaves in war:
We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses
Wives who step out of line may be beaten (lightly) Koran (4:34):
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband’s absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband’s property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.
In law, a woman’s testimony is only half as reliable as a man’s, and so 2 women are to take the place of one man in legal disputes:
And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her.
These are just some examples, a fuller exploration of the attitudes to women in Islam can be found here:
Considering all this it seems very strange then that a convert to Islam such as Myriam François Cerrah should also describe herself as a feminist:
I speak only as a feminist Muslim woman
Many other “feminists” are also either reluctant to even speak about Islam with respect to feminism, or certainly very reluctant to admit that there is a connection between what the core religious texts say about women and how women are treated in Islamic societies.
Generic example of a random feminist who has submitted to Islam:
We see articles such as one entitled “Muslims Are the True Feminists” by a female writer at the deplorable Huffington Post. In another example, Laurie Penny writes at “the Guardian” “informing” us that “This isn’t ‘feminism’. It’s Islamophobia”, a quote from this blog post:
I am infuriated by white men stirring up anti-Muslim prejudice to derail debate on western sexism
I am writing this as a white feminist infuriated by white men using dog-whistle Islamophobia to derail any discussion of structural sexism; as someone who has heard too many reactionaries tell me to shut up about rape culture and the pay gap and just be grateful I’m not in Saudi Arabia
Here is yet another example, this time at “The Conversation”:
Islam and feminism are not mutually exclusive, and faith can be an important liberator
I could go on and on listing these articles, often written by converts to Islam who still regard themselves as feminists.
Anyway, without further ado, here is Hugh’s theory as to what is behind this phenomenon (trigger warning – this is a controversial opinion about subconscious female motivations):
White, conservative heterosexual men are despised not because they are too powerful, but for precisely the opposite reason: because they are too weak. They are the only people in human history who have, through their own volition, seceded power and influence to other groups: to women, to ethnic minorities, to homosexuals and so on.
Deep down, people (especially women who dominate left wing politics) despise weakness. Women in general despise weakness in men, they despise weak men. They are not attracted to weak men, and never have been. When women seek a man, they do not ask “how equal is he”, they ask “how rich, popular and powerful is he”.
That is why radical feminism finds more to love and defend about a growing and confident Islam that explicitly denigrates them and subjugates them than the Christianity that humiliates and subjugates itself. That is why Fifty Shades of Grey is the best selling book among women in the last twenty years.
There’s a deep tension here between what a female dominated politics claims it wants (equity), and what women, deep down, have always craved on a biological level (to be dominated). It explains many of the contradictions and conflicts of aims and ambitions of modern politics. Paradoxically, it doesn’t look like it will end well for women’s equality: but almost certainly on a very deep level women don’t really want equality with men anyway, and in that sense it is possibly a kind of resolution and a return to normality.
Mohammedanism is only doing what it’s been doing since it was invented by Mohammed: conquering non-Muslim societies with a good cop/bad cop routine. Our ancestors kept Mohammedanism a non-issue not primarily through military force to exclude it, but by maintaining and sustaining healthy and fecund native societies; healthy and fecund, confident and strong Christian societies.
In one sense, Mohammedanism is just the water rushing in to fill the void created by the holes we have put in our own boat with atheism and its attendant pathogens and pathologies: contraception, abortion and attacks on marriage and morality specifically.
But another aspect is that women mate hypergamously and biologically crave dominance, and a polity dominated by women and feminism will invariably seek something to fill the void left by enfeebled, feminised and emasculated Western men. This accounts for the fact that those feminised polities already rush to the defence of Islam, an ideology which explicitly denigrates and subjugates them.
Islam will conquer Europe because it is invited in by Western women who, now they have control of the West, have a biological need to be dominated and subordinated.
And that isn’t really surprising. European Christian Men are the only men in history who have, through their own volition and without coercion, voluntarily ceded power and influence to women, homosexuals and other ethnic and religious groups. They have chosen to make themselves subordinate, and women will punish them for that by not mating with them, and seeking something stronger to replace them, even if they barely recognise they are doing so. But they are just females, like females of any species, and they will behave accordingly.
I think there might be other alternative theories as well, please feel free to share your own opinions.
From the City Journal:
Why Feminism is AWOL on Islam
From the Federalist:
Linda Sarsour’s Muslim Identity Politics Epitomize Feminism’s Hypocrisy
What do you think? Please leave a comment below.